Let's look at this situation from a serious, analytical perspective though. Tucker claims he was worried for his family when he came in and got all verbal in my grill. He then claims that when he is on the road, he can't protect his family. If this is at all true, then why did he wait two weeks to confront me? Why not come in the very next day and ask my employers about me? Why didn't he contact the office the moment he found the post? Why didn't he file a police report as soon as he felt that he and his family were threatened?

I have a couple of hypotheses:1. Tucker Carlson did not find the original post dated December 23rd until the day he came in and harassed me, January 5th. He is an extremely inefficient googler and it took him two weeks to sort through the thousands of hits ahead of my blog. Until this whole thing blew up, it was very difficult to find my blog by searching for "Tucker Carlson." This would mean that he spent hours or weeks following all the hits until he got to mine. The idea that Tucker would follow all the 1,270,000 links in a web search seems fairly implausible given that he has a job and a family, both conditions that would render him unlikely to devote 24 hours a day to ego surfing.

2. Tucker Carlson was emailed a link to my site by someone who thought he should know about it. This is the least plausible situation in my mind because the people who don't like my posts get quite vocal about it. SeanS, a former blogger who might do something like this, quit blogging months ago and only left a handful of comments anyway. I also doubt his moronic compatriots come by anymore, since they would likely have taken any opportunity to mock my liberal rantings.

3. Tucker Carlson has a google news alert that alerts him to sites that mention him. This is a fairly easy thing to set up, I was able to set one up in less than a minute on my customized Google homepage. This is the most likely scenario. Tucker is alerted by his automated system to my post shortly after it is published on blogger.

Given the ease at which one can set up these type of alerts and the likelihood of Tucker either reading them all or having an assistant read them, I am going to guess that this is how he found the original post. Since it is extremely likely that Tucker knew about the post for two weeks before he confronted me, why didn't he take any of his legal options to protect the family about which he professes to worry so much?

Some more guesses:1. Tucker does not actually care about his family. Due to the biological imperatives involved, we can rule this out.

2. Tucker cares deeply for his family but was too busy to file a police report and confront me any sooner than two weeks after the original post. We can rule this out as well for the same reason as number 1.

3. Tucker does not feel at all threatened and does not feel that his family was threatened at all. Given that Tucker has yet to file a police report so far as I know, I think this is the most likely situation. Some might say that the Metropolitan Police Department has not yet followed through on the report, but since this incident did not happen in Northeast and involves a rich white guy, we can reasonably say that the police would have followed through had any report been filed.

Thus, Tucker lied to the Washington Post when he said that felt threatened and was worried about his family. He definitely lied when he claimed that I said I was going to come by his house. I never have and I never will.

In regards to the allegations that I was claiming that I would violate the law regarding video rental privacy, that is so much bunk. At the time, I did not know about the Video Privacy Protection Act. However, ignorance of the law is not innocence. I again point that I have not revealed what was rented by Orange. I still remember what he rented and I don't think I will forget any time soon. The nature of this incident is such that I will forever carry that useless bit of knowledge with me. Should I choose to reveal that information, I understand that I could be possibly be held liable. I think the case would be thrown out, since Tucker himself has as yet raised absolutely no complaint about that part of the post. I have broken no laws and violated no privacy.

It is also important to note that I was not fired for blogging about anything. My boss stated in a conversation after my termination that he didn't care about my blogging, only that they had been threatened with legal action. The blog was not mentioned to me by my boss.

42 comments:

What I find noteworthy about Tucker's statements to the Post was that he was concerned about the safety of his family. Yet as you mentioned, he never went to the police, at least that we know of. The Post did not report such actions.

Instead we are left to believe he threatened you, asked someone, most likely a legal professional, to send a letter to your former employer and sent someone to find information about you after threatening legal action against your employer.

If he was that concerned, he would follow due process. I'm curious, not being a legal professional, why he was not instructed to go to the police instead of writing a threatening letter and then following it up with your former employer (unless the video store owner did not tell you this). That would make logical sense. Especially since the video store may have been willing to follow legal process with him if he had true and documented concerns.

Instead he appears to have by passed this process electing to confront you himself. Then he again, to the best of my knowledge on this issue, did not speak with your employer and instead went to speak with other video clerks.

Given the details as I have them and understand them (I certainly do not have all viewpoints or confirmed details as I have not spoken to Carlson or your former employer directly on this issue), have to wonder how he could have thought it was appropriate to confront you on freedom of speech himself.

More personally for me, I have to question the very fiber of this individual. His statement about being away from home while hiswife and children are at home and then verbally confronting you could be evidence of his compliance with the patriarchy and perhaps small bow-tie syndrome.

Yeah, AG, you have quite a bit wrong. I'll start with what you have right. As far as I know, Tucker did not go to the police.

Now in regards to what you have wrong: Tucker came in and yelled at me. As far as I know, someone called the office and got me fired in regards to an incident involving Tucker Carlson. Then a lawyer representing Tucker Carlson hassled my friends at the store on a couple of occasions. Tucker denies sending the lawyer to the store. He also denies threatening legal action unless I was fired.

Tucker did not approach the other clerks, someone representing him did.

I believe that if Mr. Carlson were truly concerned that you would actually harm him or his family, he would have gotten the police involved.That said, I really have to wonder what his actual motives were in confronting you... It sounds to me like he is a man who is used to getting what he wants and he decided that he wanted you fired. Is this some sort of show of power on his part?

Imagine if you were a waiter and writing about Carlson having lunch like Gephardt's. Would that be some violation of privacy?

The idea that you were threatening to publish his private info is a) absurd if one understands the English language, and b) double-super absurd given his house was pictured in the fucking paper.

I also expect your encounter with him would have been different if you had written:

Oh man, Tucker Carlson came into the video store today. He is totally dreamy, and his wife is to die for. His complexion is like a summer sunset. I am tempted to send a box of chocolates to his house, but I know that would violate his privacy.

Given that Chuckles' age was listed in the FIRST FUCKING SENTENCE of the WaPo story, I would guess that Anonymous 4:44 is Ann Althouse. That's the kind of attention to detail I would expect from America's number one non-non-partisan law blogger.

I'm not entirely clear on why the person who badgered the other store clerks is necessarily thought to be a lawyer. (Did the person actually claim to be a "lawyer" or just, say, a "representative"?) It is at least plausible that, as TC said, he does not have a lawyer, and that person was some kind of personal assistant, or perhaps his agent, maybe even a relative. Maybe this person is an ass (after all, look who they're working for), and thought calling themself a "lawyer" would be more impressive. It would also not take an actual lawyer to have threatened the store owner with legal action either.

It does, however, seem like either TC or the store owner is lying about the threat of legal action. However, there's no clear motive for the store owner to lie to Chuckles about this, while the motive for TC to lie to the press about it is pretty obvious.

anonymous@5:11 -- You do realize that Tucker said that to Chuckles, not the other way around, right?

My friend claims that the man said that he was a lawyer for Tucker Carlson. I trust he on this. She described him as a well dressed guy in a suit and coat. Other than her word, I have no actual proof that the man was a lawyer. The other employee who encountered this guy said that he asked a bunch of questions about my friend, her schedule and etc. That is what it is.

Did you every contact a lawyer? A lot of lawyers will do a first meeting at no cost in which to tell you whether or not they are interested and what payment would be. I don't work in the District, but am a lawyer and think you have a good case here - especailly as he has threatened you. A good place to start for cheap is any of the number of law schools around there. If this causes problems with your office job, mentioned in the article, you've got some serious damages you can recover on.Hence Tucker trying to cover his tracks with his comments...

Life isn't like Perry Mason, in which the bad guy comes completely clean at story's end.

Yes. Lots of people have real difficulty facing error, admitting an act of theirs was wrong, expressing remorse and taking corrective steps.

Rather they wallow in the shit, find crack brain excuses for misbehaviour, blame shift, use selective memory, & gather allies to say wrong is right and right, wrong. Just like this short-sighted non-career lying untrustworthy self-destructive public dumb ass Charles "Chuckles" Williamson.

Keep stirring the pot, Chuckles. Put some more questions & doubts in the mind of your remaining boss. Mess up the prospects of a sweeter job. Remember, it's not just the loss of a part time video store gig. You see, Google is any HR manager's best friend.

Fred Rogers, what the hell point are you trying to make? Do you think that I wouldn't know that my name would be published in the Washington Post?

Your accusations all lie in the dust of your eroded thought process. I don't know how many times I have to tell you and all your persistently ignorant cohorts, but I signed no non-disclosure agreement and made no promises not to discuss customers. I violated no privacy in my blogging. You may insist to the contrary all you want, but that doesn't mean your assertions are any less false.

Tucker is an arrogant ass, and its hilarious that he would waste his time threatening you and getting worked up over this - he is a public figure, after all. That said, as an HR person, I would have fired you for commenting on an interaction with a very specific customer and publicly insulting him. And I guarantee your boss wasn't honest with you about the reasons for your termination. They never are - they generally lack the backbone and also don't want to incur any liability for firing you.

"That said, as an HR person, I would have fired you for commenting on an interaction with a very specific customer and publicly insulting him."

Having checked out the EFF's legal advice for bloggers, I think I would have a case for wrongful termination against you. That being said, most cases like that take years to settle and resources most people don't have. Would you fire me if I had only said nice things about Tucker?

Mentioning that you have details about his home (7 and a 1/2 baths, obviously you've done some research) is a little scary so I suggest just dropping this whole thing and getting on with your lives. I mean jeez, don't you guys have anything better to talk about. Let's just hope this whole thing is over and Chuckles doesn't get a call from the Police and/or Tucker's lawyer (I don't believe that he doesn't have one, as he said in the Post. Chuckles-I hope you never need to have a background check done for some future employment.That's all. I'm out.

I also expect your encounter with him would have been different if you had written:

Oh man, Tucker Carlson came into the video store today. He is totally dreamy, and his wife is to die for. His complexion is like a summer sunset. I am tempted to send a box of chocolates to his house, but I know that would violate his privacy.

Would you fire me if I had only said nice things about Tucker?

Of all the comments on this blog, these are my favorites. Seriously, what planet do you live on?

I can imagine it now.....

Chuckles, now 31 years old, is working at McDonald's. He gives a customer his fries. He then tells the customer, "Fuck off and die. Your wife is a whore."

He then, in a huffy manner, says, "What? I bet if I had said, 'Thank you for coming to McDonald's. Have a nice day,' I wouldn't have gotten fired then, huh? HUH? Yeah, that's what I thought. That is such BULLSHIT!!! Freedom of speech!"

He then makes 5 million blog posts about the subject and how unfair it is.

Anonymous at 10:50 AM:Mentioning that you have details about his home (7 and a 1/2 baths, obviously you've done some research) is a little scary so I suggest just dropping this whole thing and getting on with your lives.

If this is scary, I wonder what Tucker says when the WASHINGTON POST reported this information several months ago. That must have made him shit his pants.

Sherpaman:When you have read all the posts I have written on the issue and the Washington Post piece, you can come back here and apologize for misunderstanding the entire situation.

I would only have known about the post if Tucker complained, which is why you were fired. But even if you'd said his wife was hot and he complained, my guess is you'd have been fired. Employees are obligated to protect the privacy and respect of their employer's customers, because you are acting on behalf of your employer with information you have as an employee. If it were another customer in the store who posted the same comment, Tucker would not have had any recourse. Just my perspective.

Chuckles, now 34, is working as a janitor at H and R Block. One day, Chuckles sees Bill Gates and his wife come in to get their taxes done. Later that night, when everyone else is gone and Chuckles is mopping the floors, he takes a peek at Gates' records which are sitting out in the open on the accountant's desk.

He goes home that night and posts on his not-very-popular, but still very public blog:

"Hey everyone! Guess who came in to my unnamed tax preparation company today? Bill Gates!!! At first I didn't recognize him, but then I realized he was a Giant Cobag Moron. His wife was ugly as was her outfit. Anyway, I can tell you what some of his more "interesting" deductions are if you really want to know. However, I won't tell you what his address is, as that would be wrong and stupid. I also won't be sending a bunch of Macintosh computers to his house, even though they would be more awesome then defecating on his front porch (which I will leave ambiguous as to whether I am actually planning to do)."

Gates somehow gets wind of the posting, and is (shockingly) pissed off about it. He goes to H and R block and complains.

The manager fires Chuckles.

Chuckles, despite the fact he had threatened to reveal Gates's private information and had insulted both the customer and his wife, protested loudly. In a brilliant observation, he stated, "Freedom of speech!!!!! If I had said nice things about Gates and if I hadn't threatened to reveal his private information, I bet I wouldn't have gotten fired! Admit it, BossMan!!!"

His boss admits that that might, in fact, be true.

Chuckles then goes on to say, "A ha!! I knew it. The man is always out to get me. Freedom of speech!"

Chuckles then blogs extensively on the subject. He doesn't get hired for another 5 years when he finally gets a job as a Depends Diaper Testperson.

As always, I'm behind in knowing what's going on with ppl. Wow, Chuckles, you really got some folks worked up. Over what? A blog post? I mean really. You didn't reveal anything personal about the man, other than he was with someone. And the threat to reveal what he rented? Whatever. Who cares? And if there is a law relating to your job, your employer has a responsibility to make you aware. That's what all those lovely posters in the break room are for. I say, good work, keep it up. And for all you persons who want to make rude and disparaging comments about someone you've never met and only wish to judge through his writings - take a closer look at yourselves. You shouldn't judge a person until you meet them, and none of you ever will, since Chuckles learned in college not to hang with people who are so judgmental.

You are a total idiot. I don't like Tucker Carlson myself, but you showed yourself to be completely unprofessional. You took a job with Potomac Video, and should have had the decency to respect the customer's privacy, not brag about your accidental encounter with someone who has achieved something and who actually has a life. I hope you enjoyed your little brush with momentary notoriety, as you will never experience any thing of the sort again. Yo were expected to be courteous and do your job. If you had mentioned your encounter with Carlson verbally that's one thing, but engaging in insults, and gossiping are little troubling for someone almost thirty. If you are just temping at your age, you are clearly an absolute loser, and have no life yourself!